Retrial for Sentencing of Jodi Arias - 12/11-14 ~weekend~

[MeeBee]

Was it changed or did some get the spelling wrong? I think it was the latter.

Still it would be kind of funny if Juan filed a motion demanding twitter provide all her tweets and DMs since she came on board.

No, it's the former. It used to be cougarloucious. See this tweet from SW to MDLR

@cougarloucious Oh, it's okay, dear! I've come this far...ha!

It's now spelled cougarluscious.

 

[ohreally]

Was it changed or did some get the spelling wrong? I think it was the latter.

Still it would be kind of funny if Juan filed a motion demanding twitter provide all her tweets and DMs since she came on board.

It's possible that it was just spelled wrong. I am so suspicious of anything this defense does, and was thinking she wanted to make sure JS found her account.

Oops just saw MeeBee's post. I thought I had seen posts in the past mentioning it was misspelled.

 

[bsk]

No, it's the former. It used to be cougarloucious. See this tweet from SW to MDLR

@cougarloucious Oh, it's okay, dear! I've come this far...ha!

It's now spelled cougarluscious.

Thanks for the clarification. Sounds like she was hiding something according to KN's logic.

 

[Caylee Advocate]

http://www.azcentral.com/story/news...ser censored*-hearing-juan-martinez/20274011/

Arias trial: Mesa police expert admits *advertiser censored* on computer

Michael Kiefer and Anne Ryman

View attachment 65382
View attachment 65384

His article also forgot to mention that he and "cougarlicious" were mentioned as being nominees for the wall of shame award. LMAO

 

[Boytwnmom]

Trying to understand the technical aspects a bit. So, at the first trial both experts testified about TA's computer. I recently posted my notes:

My notes from Dworkin testimony:

Ensure copies match-his copy read only. Standard protocol-we all including LE follow same protocol. Verify evidence is intact. Recover lost folders. If Parent file deleted-child can still be recovered-next step run file signature verification. Sometimes people try to hide info by changing file extension-jpeg-doc etc. check to see files actually match header.

Then examined looking at areas of interest. Internet history-two types of recovery used for this-Encase (internet history-when you surf a log file is maintained that’s not visible to user-it's hidden and Encase recovers these log files and creates a Master Log File. Recovers previously deleted browser records. He generated report-standard Encase report. Report tells us internet history-tells time, date etc. Each thing you do on internet is a log event. Typing in url, redirect, etc.

My notes from Melendez testimony:

Worked for Mesa Police inJune of 2008 in the computer forensics unit. Looked at laptop. He forensically examined hard drive. No indication he couldn’t access anything in hard drive. Everything was available/viewed.

No photos of women from waist up-no photos of women’s breasts.

Initially searched for all types of file images. Looked for files embedded in other files, i.e. photo in doc. No naked women. All interenet history. No access to adult sites.

Looked at what software was added. Just basic software added. Windows office. Looked for file sharing software. No images of children.

Media, cd’s etc seized. Computer registered to Deanna. He looked at it for recent activity.

What do you do to forensic exam. Seized and made mirror image. Hard drive is where data is. Powered it down to preserve data. Wrote report. Exhibit 347-has him read second paragraph. Last activity 4:54.

Cookies-leave a trail-but all history is available in internet history. Exhibit 419-harder faster stronger video-that’s what defense spent their time on. June 4, 2008 at 4:54 last time it was accessed.

So, now Nurmi argues that there are all these *advertiser censored* "hits" or "sites" or something despite both experts testifying there was no *advertiser censored*, no filesharing, no *advertiser censored* hits from internet history. It sounds like these were found in the Registry which is very different from the history. The Registry would store info on all kinds of things including viruses and malware that cause redirection to other websites. So, the registry contains history of non-user directed actions.

I looked for info from 2008. There were a lot of those fake pop-ups back then that said your computer was infected, that you needed an update, etc and if you clicked on it you downloaded the virus. Apparently MySpace was a huge source of virus/malware and TA used it. Info also said Internet Explorer was the worst for malware-not sure which browser he used. It's also common to get malware when you download bundled "freeware" and you're not careful to "uncheck" all the extras it will give you and I believe there was testimony that TA had these types of free security programs.

According to Symantec sensors in 2008, the release rate of malware and other unwanted software may soon exceed that of legitimate applications. F-Secure follows this up by reporting that just as much malware was released in 2007 as in the past twenty years combined. Malware in its many forms poses one of the biggest threats to internet users today. Malicious software can be divided into a number of different categories and includes computer viruses, worms, Trojans and spyware among others. It has the ability to hijack your web browser, redirect your search engine attempts, bombard your screen with pop-up advertisements and even monitor your activity...

Most malware programs will reinstall themselves even after you think they have been removed, some will have 10 or more copies scattered in the computer. They typically hide deep within the Windows registry, making them difficult to remove. When this occurs, your computer may become so unstable that installing a malware removal tool may be impossible.

http://www.nashvillecomputerguru.com/knowledge-base/malware-virus-removal/

So, all of these "hits" were from non-user directed action found in the registry. I don't know how anything found like that could ever be associated with any person as there is no evidence of any affirmative human action and thus could never meet any evidentiary standards I've aware of. And I assume that's why none of this registry "evidence" was ever presented by either expert at the first trial.

CAVEAT: I could be completely wrong about any or all of this as I am not much of a geek-sorry.

 

[MeeBee]

His article also forgot to mention that he and "cougarlicious" were mentioned as being nominees for the wall of shame award. LMAO

That's because he'd already run off by then to break some news so Nurmi could mention it in his arguments.

I can't believe he actually brought that up as part of his argument. "The state has a history of this kind of misconduct...in this one case that I'm going to mention many times that was just resolved like 10 minutes ago..."

Has the man not a thought of his own?

 

[WhoaIsMe]

She's hiding everything. I can't see any of her 650 tweets. Guess you have to be in the kool aid drinking club to see what words of wisdom MDL is imparting.

 

[MeeBee]

@TrialDiariesJ: Funny pic someone sent me today! #jodiarias http://t.co/PQAOCbesAy

 

[MeeBee]

Thanks for the clarification. Sounds like she was hiding something according to KN's logic.

She's definitely hiding it now, as whoaisme said. You now have to be a follower of hers to read her tweets. I'm guessing to hide all the immature twitter feuds she engaged in. They don't reflect well on her or her team.

 

[JSR]

For example, lol

Spoiler

08:38AM	@michaelbkiefer	Back in #JodiArias courtroom. Jennifer Willmott begins cross examination of Mesa PD detective Esteban Flores.	Twitter
08:39AM	@michaelbkiefer	Willmott begins by asking Flores how many years he has been a police officer (21) and asks about rules for crime scenes and evidence.	Twitter
08:45AM	@michaelbkiefer	Flores says that it is within evidence protocol to "wake" a computer and says he did so with Travis Alexander's at the crime scene.	Twitter
08:49AM	@michaelbkiefer	Det. Flores says that Alexander murder was the first case he handled where he brought defense to look at electronic evidence. #JodiArias	Twitter
08:54AM	@michaelbkiefer	Willmott walks Flores through a log of the police personnel who checked the computer out of the evidence locker. #JodiArias	Twitter
09:02AM	@michaelbkiefer	Flores says he did not plug in the cord or turn on Travis Alexander's computer when defense came to look at it. #JodiArias	Twitter
09:03AM	@michaelbkiefer	"I had a little bit of a concern," Flores says of turning on the computer, but, "I felt safe because we already had a copy." #JodiArias	Twitter
09:05AM	@michaelbkiefer	Flores says he did a hard shutdown of the computer when defense was done looking at it. Doesn't remember if Juan Martinez looked at it.	Twitter
09:06AM	@michaelbkiefer	"I don't remember anything about nude photos," Flores said. It wasn't an issue... at that time." #JodiArias	Twitter
10:18AM	@michaelbkiefer	Smith says that the drive was damaged. Martinez is done.	Twitter
10:18AM	@michaelbkiefer	"RT @TrialDiariesJ: Juan- What happened when you went to make an image from TA hard drive? Perry- It was damaged #jodiarias #3tvarias"	Twitter
10:32AM	@michaelbkiefer	Willmott begins her cross examination of Smith, first asking about protocol in dealing with computers at crime scenes.	Twitter
10:35AM	@michaelbkiefer	Willmott shows Smith a copy of Mesa PD policy and asks him to read to himself.	Twitter
10:37AM	@michaelbkiefer	The policy clearly says to secure the area and not to turn computers on or off or open files or access registries or discs.	Twitter
10:40AM	@michaelbkiefer	Willmott presses Smith on whether it's ok to wake up a computer from sleep mode at a crime scene. He says it is under some circumstances.	Twitter
10:42AM	@michaelbkiefer	Smith admits that the best course of action is to take the battery out and cord off the computer.	Twitter
10:42AM	@michaelbkiefer	RT @WildAboutTrial: Smith: There are reasons to waken a CPU from sleep at a crime scene. He did it once without a writeblocker. #JodiArias	Twitter
10:44AM	@michaelbkiefer	Willmott gets Mesa PD computer guy Smith to admit that waking the computer changes files and deletes cache files, among other things.	Twitter
10:46AM	@michaelbkiefer	Willmott then gets Smith to say it's a violation of policy to turn on the computer and presses him as to letting "civilians" do it. He balks	Twitter
10:49AM	@michaelbkiefer	Willmott gets to the copies. "They're not the actual evidence are they?" Smith: "No, they're not."	Twitter
10:50AM	@michaelbkiefer	Willmott asks if Smith has the exact image of the original hard drive at Mesa PD. Yes.	Twitter
10:51AM	@michaelbkiefer	Willmott gets Smith to say that the drives he examined were copies that were worked on, not the original evidence.	Twitter
10:51AM	@michaelbkiefer	RT @monicalindstrom: Expert:copies from Neu are nothing more than working copies, not images. not talking about the image/actual evidence. #jOdiArias	Twitter
10:52AM	@michaelbkiefer	RT @WildAboutTrial: Willmott points out these copies or clones are meant to be worked on. Smith agrees. #JodiArias	Twitter
10:54AM	@michaelbkiefer	Willmott asks if *advertiser censored* was found on the 2008 image. Long pause, then Smith says yes. And that it's not the same as the clones.	Twitter
10:55AM	@michaelbkiefer	Martinez redirect: Smith repeats that list of *advertiser censored* sites on registry doesn't mean the user went there.	Twitter
10:55AM	@michaelbkiefer	RT @TrialDiariesJ: Perry- It's a describing link and Det. Brown did find some *advertiser censored* on the computer.#jodiarias #3tvarias	Twitter
10:57AM	@michaelbkiefer	Martinez repeats that the incinerator file in the recycle.bin file could have been 70,000 deleted files.	Twitter
10:58AM	@michaelbkiefer	Back to changes on Neumeister's working copy versus the original. Martinez calls it tampering.	Twitter
11:00AM	@michaelbkiefer	Willmott objects that Martinez has the original and that the working clones are not relevant. Martinez calls them files that were changed.	Twitter
11:00AM	@michaelbkiefer	"Counsel, please approach."	Twitter
11:02AM	@michaelbkiefer	Back at 1:30. Willmott has more witnesses.	Twitter
12:17PM	@michaelbkiefer	Gotta deal with a breaking story, so my colleague @anneryman is covering for me this afternoon in #JodiArias. BTW, I'm off for rest of month	Twitter
12:19PM	@michaelbkiefer	@Tammybaby65 No, she was deliberately eliciting the answers she wanted. Lawyers do that.	Twitter
01:06PM	@michaelbkiefer	Arizona Court of Appeals orders murder case dropped against Debra Milke on double jeopardy grounds and "egregious prosecutorial misconduct."	Twitter
01:41PM	@michaelbkiefer	Appeals court dismisses Debra Milke murder charges http://t.co/cT91cPrvjS via @azcentral	Twitter
01:44PM	@michaelbkiefer	Btw: reporters don't need the judge's or the prosecutor's permission to do interviews.	Twitter
02:19PM	@michaelbkiefer	Go back to #JodiArias in time for Kirk Nurmi's last words. Coicidence: he compares Flores to Det. Saldate from Debra Milke story just wrote.	Twitter
02:20PM	@michaelbkiefer	Sorry I missed hearing about everything I did. Had another story to write.	Twitter
02:21PM	@michaelbkiefer	As Yogi Berra put it, "I never said half of the things I said."	Twitter
02:28PM	@michaelbkiefer	Appeals court dismisses Debra Milke murder charges @azcentral http://t.co/cT91cPrvjS	Twitter

Just noticed the time gaps. Ah well, his Tweets are easy to find if you want to read them.

I see that JM's question about if former Atty Maria got permission from the judge to do interviews went right over Kiefer's head, reporters don't need permission but a witness might if there was a gag order. Bottom line Maria should have known she shouldn't have given the interview.

 

[MeeBee]

I see that JM's question about if former Atty Maria got permission from the judge to do interviews went right over Kiefer's head, reporters don't need permission but a witness might if there was a gag order. Bottom line Maria should have known she shouldn't have given the interview.

It is amazingly convenient that MK disappeared just long enough to miss JM questioning Schaffer about the interview she gave him and Juan's accusation against MDLR leaking info to him. Now he gets to pretend that never happened.

 

[Koshka]

I believe there is a search engine that pulls up deleted tweets so it likely wouldn't do her any good to be deleting things at this point. Can't see why the prosecution would really bother looking for any though. That's just another rabbit hole they'd rather avoid I'm sure. At this point they just want this phase to get on track with the witnesses and be done with it.

MOO

Yes, in the Tekeka Patrick case hundreds of deleted tweets were recovered by WSers. Deleted definitely doesn't mean gone.

 

[Kamille]

I see that JM's question about if former Atty Maria got permission from the judge to do interviews went right over Kiefer's head, reporters don't need permission but a witness might if there was a gag order. Bottom line Maria should have known she shouldn't have given the interview.

Why is this all being allowed? The defense has been whining about media and coverage but at the same time they've got a reporter in their back pocket and they're all over social media. Same rules should apply to them. Remember the hullabaloo when JM posed for a picture way back when? The jury can't even check their facebooks while the DT is holding them hostage for much longer than anticipated.

MOO

 

[Val1]

Dang it. I thought for sure their headline would be "Arias trial: Taxpayer-paid cougarluscious illegally leaks info to azcentral reporter"

From a defense schill? Not likely. :/

 

[Katharine]

Well, of course not but...

So, I was looking for info on whether child *advertiser censored* is, or was, even available on the internet via a web search using the claimed terms of "teen" and "tween" or even "child *advertiser censored*". I found a law enforcement article from 2006 that indicated even back then child *advertiser censored* sites were basically shut down as soon as they were created.



http://www.popcenter.org/problems/child_pornography/print/

So, I would argue that even if TA searched for "teen" "tween" or whatever, there would have been no child *advertiser censored* found as a result. If there was an interest in the subject, what would have been found on his computer would be evidence of belonging to a newsgroup, chat room etc devoted to sharing images. Even if he deleted files they would be found since they all searched for deleted and hidden files and files with innocuous names that could hide other things. Both experts in the first trial testified to that. And since there were no images it is, IMO, basically impossible that TA was interested in any way in child *advertiser censored*.

Not that I believe even JSS would allow Nurmi to present testimony about child *advertiser censored* on TA's computer to the jury. But if it does happen I hope Juan is prepared to attack the claims on the merits as I find what they are proposing is absurd. Add to that the fact that Nurmi has never even presented any evidence that anything on TA's computer actually led to any actual child *advertiser censored*. I am hoping that JSS took note of that.

This was just such interesting reading as many posts have been related to the discussion of child *advertiser censored*. I had no idea. I do not know how to bold things, but emphasis on the year 2006 for that LE article that you provided. It was the fall of 2006 when TA and JA met. The article also stated the need for good computer skills and inside knowledge ........I am sure that Travis was knowledgeable about computers but not THAT computer savvy and when would he have had all that time for this extra curricular stuff. There has just been no proof of child *advertiser censored* on his computer nor even in his house. This whole experience has sure been educational...child *advertiser censored*, computer forensics and even time zones (and much more that I cannot begin to enumerate). Thank you so much for this input and discussion.

 

[Val1]

Was it changed or did some get the spelling wrong? I think it was the latter.

Still it would be kind of funny if Juan filed a motion demanding twitter provide all her tweets and DMs since she came on board.

I know I initially spelled it incorrectly because that's how Wild spelled it on their tweet at the time, though when I did a search for it I must've intuitively spelled it properly because her page came up as others later reported. Point is, I have no idea if she did previously have another twitter account with a different spelling, or name for that matter.

 

[MeeBee]

Eventually for Nurmi, everything comes down to sex. He's a lot like Jodi in that if they can make someone seem sexually gross enough, behind all the other accusations, it'll taint their whole view of them. Today we learned that Juan wasn't just looking through photos of Travis' lap top, he was looking for naked pictures of Jodi for god only knows what reason. No wonder Juan was so over it by the time it came to oral arguments.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

It is amazingly convenient that MK disappeared just long enough to miss JM questioning Schaffer about the interview she gave him and Juan's accusation against MDLR leaking info to him. Now he gets to pretend that never happened.

:seeya: Exactly, MeeBee !

Obviously, Kiefer got the memo from the defense warning him Schaffer was going to be in court and to get the hello out of there.

But what a :liar: MK is : he said he had an "emergency" to cover, and then he also said he was off for the rest of the month !

So which is it, Kiefer ?

:gaah:

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Eventually for Nurmi, everything comes down to sex. He's a lot like Jodi in that if they can someone seem sexually gross enough it'll taint their whole view of them.

Today we learned that Juan wasn't just looking through photos of Travis' lap top, he was looking for naked pictures of Jodi for god only knows what reason.

No wonder Juan was so over it by the time it came to oral arguments.

BBM:

:gaah: It was so obvious what Nurmi was implying when he made that totally uncalled for statement against Juan ! It made my blood boil !

That was such a low blow by Nurmi against Juan.

And IF I were the judge I would have sanctioned Nurmi big time for that !

:moo:

 

[daisydomino]

Eventually for Nurmi, everything comes down to sex. He's a lot like Jodi in that if they can someone seem sexually gross enough it'll taint their whole view of them. Today we learned that Juan wasn't just looking through photos of Travis' lap top, he was looking for naked pictures of Jodi for god only knows what reason. No wonder Juan was so over it by the time it came to oral arguments.

Even if he was, it seems legit to me: naked pictures of Jodi were pretty important pieces of evidence from the washing machine camera. What clues might tell the truth about what could have happened between the short time the naked pictures were taken and the vicious bloody murder of Travis Alexander?